Back to all issues

Strong concern

Noise evidence and operating hours

The proposed hours run from 6 am to 10 pm every day. The City requested acoustic work, but the applicant asks to provide a full assessment later.

Shown in documentsEN-0010

The applicant's report records that the City sought an acoustic assessment at pre-lodgement

The applicant's planning report records that the City advised at pre-lodgement that it sought an acoustic assessment.

What this does not prove: This records the applicant's account of the request, not the City's reasons or final view on adequacy.
Primary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 6“the City advised that it seeks an acoustic assessment.”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Applicant's claimEN-0011

The applicant asks to defer a full acoustic report

The applicant says a full acoustic report is not required at lodgement and asks for an acoustic assessment to be required at building-permit stage.

What this does not prove: This is the applicant's position. The City must decide what evidence it needs before determining the application.
Primary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“a full acoustic report is not required at lodgement.”Open the source pagePrimary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“We request the City condition an approval to require an acoustic impact assessment be prepared as part of a building permit application with the recommendations of the assessment being implemented as part of the building permit application.”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Applicant's claimEN-0022

The applicant lists built-in noise-control measures

The applicant says activity would be indoors, the lower 5 metres of the eastern wall would be concrete, east and south windows would be fixed double glazing, and there would be no east or south doors.

What this does not prove: These are proposed measures. Without the acoustic assessment, this note does not establish predicted noise at nearby homes.
Primary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“the recreation activity is located indoors. no outdoor or unenclosed courts are proposed”Open the source pagePrimary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“the lower 5m of the eastern wall will be concrete tilt up or similar”Open the source pagePrimary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“all glazing facing east and south will be double glazed Low E glass. These windows will not be operable”Open the source pagePrimary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 17“there are no doors or access points on the eastern or southern boundaries”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0031

Policy 4.5 says new uses must not harm nearby amenity

Policy 4.5 says new uses must not cause detrimental effects on surrounding lots through traffic, parking, noise, dust, vibration, odour and similar impacts.

What this does not prove: The policy states the test. This note does not predict the proposal's actual impacts.
Primary sourceCity Policy 4.5 Private Institution Design Guidelines | Page 2“New uses shall not cause a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding lots in terms of traffic and parking impacts, noise, dust, vibrations, odour and the like.”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0040

The Scheme lists height, noise, access, landscaping and hours as condition topics

The Scheme allows conditions about building height and design, use and noise, access and parking, landscaping, lighting and operating hours.

What this does not prove: Conditions cannot necessarily cure every problem. The Scheme notes that a condition should not change the nature of the application.
Primary sourceLocal Planning Scheme No. 3 | Page 121“design of buildings and associated development, including architectural character, floor levels, height, facades and roofing”Open the source pagePrimary sourceLocal Planning Scheme No. 3 | Page 121“use and occupation of premises including the nature of tenancies, control of access, limitation of occupancy and control of noise”Open the source pagePrimary sourceLocal Planning Scheme No. 3 | Page 121“hours of operation and/or occupation of premises or defined areas or activities”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Applicant's claimEN-0051

The applicant says an acoustic report is being prepared for construction specifications

In its Clause 67 assessment, the applicant says an acoustic report is being prepared to inform construction specifications while maintaining that it is not required at development-application lodgement.

What this does not prove: The cited statement gives no findings from the report because it describes the report as being prepared.
Primary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 25“An acoustic report is being prepared to inform construction specification, however the applicant maintains that a full acoustic report is not required at DA lodgement”Open the source page
Open this evidence note

Questions worth asking

  • Why should the acoustic assessment be deferred until after the planning decision?
  • What are the predicted levels at nearby homes during the full operating period?

CAMPAIGN POSITION

Refuse DA26/1308 in its current form.

Only if approved anyway: If approved anyway, require the acoustic assessment first and impose enforceable hours and noise controls.